School of Languages and Literature/English Level: G3

Supervisor: Per Sivefors 2EN20E

Examiner: Johan Höglund Credits: 15
30 May 2012

When All Comes down to Clothes:

An Interpretation of P.G. Wodehouse's The Inimitable Jeeves

Tobias Frööjd
 Frööjd 1

Abstract

My aim for this paper is to analyse the character Jeeves' obsession with perfect clothing in

P. G. Wodehouse's The Inimitable Jeeves (1923). My method has been to study the historical

context of the British aristocracy at the time of the first publication of the book in 1923, as

well as the previous four decades during which the author grew up and decisive changes in

the British class society took place. This paper studies sources on the significance of clothing

in general, and examines its importance at the time in particular. For my analysis I have

borrowed elements from new historicism. The norms, traditions and values of the aristocracy

lost in importance during this time, and the aristocracy was divided into individuals who were

willing to adopt to these changes and others who fought to defy them. My conclusion is that

Jeeves considers the strict dress codes to be an important symbol of the old aristocratic values

that he has to defend, in order to legitimize his own position, as he is profoundly devoted to

his calling of being a first class valet faithful to the old traditions. Wooster, then, acts as

Jeeves' opponent on the matter as he embodies the part of the aristocracy willing to embrace

the changes instead.

 Frööjd 2

Table of Contents

Introduction 3

Theoretical Framework 4

Historical Context 7

Analysis 15

Conclusion 21

Works Cited 24
 Frööjd 3

Introduction

Well, there was only one thing to do, and I did it. I'm not saying it didn't hurt,

but there was no alternative. “Jeeves” I said, “those spats.” “Yes, sir?” “You

really dislike them?” “Intensely, sir.” “You don't think time might induce you

to change your views?” “No, sir.” “All right, then. Very well. Say no more. You

may burn them.” “Thank you very much, sir. I have already done so. Before

breakfast this morning. A quiet grey is far more suitable, sir. Thank you, sir”

(Wodehouse 204).

While reading P. G. Wodehouse's The Inimitable Jeeves (1923), I became aware of the

emphasis put on clothing in the story, and how this is manifested by the uncompromising

opinions of Jeeves, the valet. The character of Jeeves could actually be described as

uncompromising in every matter, as no aspect of his duty is left to chance and his perfection

as a valet is widely recognized in London's high society. Although Jeeves is obviously loyal to

his master, there is one matter where he simply will not yield. When Wooster ignores his

guidelines on proper clothing, Jeeves displays a defiant coldness against his master until his

opinion is finally respected.

My aim with this paper is to analyse why the question of clothing is so fundamental to

Jeeves, that it makes it the only thing able to strain his otherwise stoic patience with his

master. My thesis statement is that Jeeves, being renowned for his impeccable

professionalism, passionately tries to uphold and protect these very strict and exclusive dress

codes as they symbolize the old, elaborated aristocratic traditions that were under severe

threat during this time in history. The same threat was indirectly pointed at Jeeves and his

honour too, as without these traditions being kept alive, most of his reputation as “the best

valet in London” would fade. Since Jeeves regards Wooster to be first of all a
 Frööjd 4

member of the aristocracy, with an obligation to uphold the aristocratic values of appearance,

then any individual traits might diminish Wooster's level of commitment to these values.

Wooster, then, acts as Jeeves' opponent on the matter as he instead embodies the part of the

aristocracy willing to embrace changes in society.

Theoretical Framework

The perspective for my analysis will borrow elements from new historicism, as I

intend to create an understanding of Jeeves' actions by interpreting the historical, cultural and

class-based circumstances at play in the story. Stephen Greenblatt explains his view on new

historicism in Kiernan Ryan's New Historicism and Cultural Materialism (1996) by stating:

New historicism, by contrast, eschews the use of the term “man”; interest lies

not in the abstract universal but in particular, contingent cases, the selves

fashioned and acting according to the generative rules and conflicts of a given

culture. And these selves, conditioned by the expectations of their class,

gender, religion, race and national identity, are constantly effecting changes in

the course of history. Indeed if there is any inevitability in the new historicism's

vision of history it is this insistence on agency, for even inaction or extreme

marginality is understood to possess meaning and therefore to imply intention.

Every form of behaviour, in this view, is a strategy: taking up arms or taking

flight are significant social actions, but so is staying put, minding one's

business, turning one's face to the wall. Agency is virtually inescapable (55).

The concepts of class and culture will be closely intertwined in my analysis, as most of the

cultural behaviour I concentrate on is based on class. The historical concept will be used both

to describe the conflicts but also to interpret the different intentions and consequences related

to the actions of the two characters Wooster and Jeeves. Greenblatt continues:
 Frööjd 5

Inescapable but not simple: new historicism, as I understand it, does not posit

historical processes as unalterable and inexorable, but it does tend to discover

limits or constraints upon individual intervention: actions that appear to be

single are disclosed as multiple; the apparently isolated power of the individual

genius turns out to be bound up with collective, social energy; a gesture of

dissent may be an element in a larger legitimation process, while an attempt to

stabilize the order of things may turn out to subvert it (Ryan 55).

This paragraph offers plenty of points to be made on the analysis of the argument between

Wooster and Jeeves. Jeeves' struggle comes from the social energy within the “culture” that he

is supporting and protecting. Wooster's “gesture of dissent” is an attempt to diminish the

effects of this culture, and it is questionable whether Jeeves' strict manners will save his

culture in the long run, or make it seem even less attractive.

How then might Wodehouse's perspective on the changes in his contemporary society

differ from ours? Gallagher and Greenblatt writes in Practicing New Historicism (2000):

still, the notion of a distinct culture, particularly a culture distant in time or

space ... is powerfully attractive for several reasons. It carries the core

hermeneutical presumption that one can occupy a position from which one can

discover meanings that those who left traces of themselves could not have

articulated ... something that the authors we study would not have had the

sufficient distance upon themselves and their own era to grasp (8).

Today we have the advantage of some ninety years of history having past after the first

publication of The Inimitable Jeeves (1923). Still, Wodehouse had a way of producing

escapist stories with few remarks of past events or predictions for the future. The focus is on a

present that happens to be situated at a certain inconstant time in history that is in itself made
 Frööjd 6

into a static state in the book.

Even though the terms of the British class society is of vital importance in

Wodehouse's many books about Wooster and Jeeves, my analysis will abstain from any claims

regarding Wodehouse's possible view on the class values depicted in his books. It is true that

the relationship between Wooster and Jeeves promotes a highly ironic view on class society,

as the master is presented as being so obviously inferior to his servant in every aspect of his

character. Even though this might appear to be an obviously critical view, Kirby Olson

suggests in his journal article “Bertie and Jeeves at the End of History: P. G. Wodehouse as

Political Scientist” (1996) that “[w]here Marx sought the withering away of hostile classes;

and many of his successors sought their active obliteration … Wodehouse finds competition

between groups to be the motor that drives society; it is that which makes society chaotic and

disturbing, but also fun and worthwhile” (86). Irrespective of what Wodehouse might have

felt about these values, they were obviously of great interest or concern to him, as he would

portray them so frequently, using prejudices about classes and contrasting values for

humoristic effect.

I have based my analysis on the historical context of British class society

contemporary with the first publication of The Inimitable Jeeves (1923), as well as on the four

decades prior to this, during which P. G. Wodehouse was born and raised. First, I will review

the dramatic changes that the British aristocracy and their employees experienced starting in

the 1880s, and how this caused a diversion where some embraced, or at least accepted, these

dramatic changes of society while others stubbornly tried to protect the last remains of a

glorious past. I will then apply this context on my analysis of The Inimitable Jeeves (1923),

presenting how the two characters of Wooster and Jeeves could be said to represent these two

different attitudes towards a changing society.

 Frööjd 7

The concept of history is of considerable importance as the stories depict a very

specific and decisive part of history. Wodehouse wrote about a society that was contemporary

to him, and which had seen such great changes during his lifetime. The concepts of class and

culture concerns the old traditional codes and values specific for the aristocracy. Those are the

ones that came under threat as a result of the great changes in society, and they are ultimately,

in the form of non-negotiable dress codes, the source of Jeeves' and Wooster's disagreements.

One reason why clothing could prove such an important means of preserving

traditional values in a changing time can be found in Diana Crane's Fashion and Its Social

Agendas: Class, Gender and Identity in Clothing (2000):

Explaining the construction of identity and resistance to hegemony through

clothing requires an interpretation on how clothes express meaning. Clothing

as a form of nonverbal, visual communication is a powerful means of making

subversive social statements, because these statements are not necessarily

constructed or received on a conscious or rational level. Changes in the

significance of certain types of clothing and in the ways clothes communicate

meanings are indications of major alterations in how social groups and

groupings perceive their relationships to one another (237).

In the light of imminent changes, the significance of already strict codes increased, especially

when deemed essential to demonstrate a clear distance between one's own group and other

groupings.

Historical Context

As background information on the British class society contemporary with the

characters of Wooster and Jeeves, I would like to start by referring to David Cannadine's

exhaustive work The Decline And Fall of the British Aristocracy (1996). Cannadine argues
 Frööjd 8

that the radical changes of British class society actually started already in the 1880s, and “[b]y

1914, exclusive, aristocratic society had been transformed so fundamentally that it was no

longer clear that it existed in its traditional sense” (351). What was it then that had changed,

and what sparked the change? Cannadine states that the wealth and power of the British

aristocracy up until the last quarter of the nineteenth century was based on vast ownership of

land. According to the statistics that he uses, some 7 000 families owned four-fifths of the

land of the British Isles in the late 1870s, all of these estates counting a minimum of 1 000

acres each. (9). The families that owned the most formidable assets in this group formed the

aristocracy. As Cannadine writes, “[v]iewed as an economic class, the gentry and grandees

were thus both the wealth élite in that they encompassed most of the richest men in the

country, and the territorial élite in that they owned most of the land in Britain” (10).

Besides claiming most of the wealth in the Kingdom, the aristocracy also had a claim

to considerable political strength. It was simply considered obvious before the 1880s that

anyone who were to be trusted with a position and influence must come from the noble and

educated ranks of society. Zygmunt Bauman explains this in Between Class and Elite (1972)

by stating “[t]he middle classes felt respect for the hierarchical traditions and shibboleths of

the aristocracy, and an almost superstitious fear of storming the castles that were their

historical possessions ... In the political sphere it retained its monopoly of the key positions in

the state administration” (76).

Given that the British society of the time obviously provided these aristocrats with a

serious amount of privileges and political influence, it may look astonishing that they were to

lose so much of their power in such a relatively short period of time. It is often said that the

traumatic experience of the First World War changed British society forever. Although this is

considered to be a well known fact, Cannadine writes, as stated before, that the aristocratic
 Frööjd 9

society had transformed fundamentally already at the breakout of war in 1914. What actually

started this transformation, as early as in the 1880s according to him, was

the sudden and dramatic collapse of the agricultural base of the European

economy, partly because of the massive influx of cheap foreign goods from

North and South America and the Antipodes, and partly because of the final

and emphatic burgeoning of the fully fledged, large-scale, and highly

concentrated industrial economy (26).

For this reason, the financial advantage of the aristocrats that had seemed virtually

untouchable just a few years earlier had begun to crumble. It is true that a lot of them had

invested in important areas of the new economy, for example the industry and the railroad, but

the backbone of their wealth had still always been the income of their land. With high

expenses for their luxurious lifestyle, it is clear that the reality of the aristocracy as a

whole was in for a dramatic change. Paul Thompson states in The Edwardians: the Remaking

of British Society (1992):

the open display of wealth was an essential element in the upper-class style of

life. Wealth, birth and manners constituted the three prime qualifications for

commanding obedience and respect from others. Although many of the rich

already wintered abroad, most of their money was spent in Britain on highly

visible comforts such as country houses, personal servants and lavish

entertaining (3).

Unfortunately for them, what caused this economical decline, and in many cases an

impoverishment of lifestyle, also caused a serious decline in political and social influence, as

explained by Cannadine:

Agricultural depression spawned peasant revolts and nationalist movements in

 Frööjd 10

each of the four great polyglot countries: Germany, Russia, Austria-Hungary,

and the British Isles. The increasingly prosperous and assertive middle class

shaded imperceptibly into the new and fabulously rich international plutocracy.

By the last quarter of the nineteenth century, these men were no longer satisfied

with mere wealth: they craved both the political power and the social

recognition to which they believed their fortunes entitled them. At the same

time, urban and industrial growth brought into being a new world of strikes and

riots, socialists and anarchists, and working class political parties … At the

same time that the economy became global, politics became democratized (26).

One can easily imagine the sense of humiliation and despair that self-proclaimed guardians of

the old order must have felt in the face of these changes. Once, real wealth and influence was

reserved for the people who, to their own mind, were best fit to handle it. They were of course

people of their own kind and taste, sharing their values and their sense of class and heritage.

They were also people who had gone to the finest public schools and universities, who had

learned the proper way of speaking, thinking and acting. Undoubtedly, many in this class of

people saw themselves as living national treasures, the pride of the nation as a whole.

In the wake of these changes, several members of this former élite had to see

themselves being surpassed by the newly rich. These were the people who, despite being

highly successful in business, were still looked down on for lacking the refinement and

heritage of the aristocracy. Still, they were the ones who were willing and able to buy the

properties that some of the aristocrats were forced to sell. Art collections, land and estates that

might have been in the same families for centuries were now sold to people without any

relating history or affection. A number of magnificent palaces and town houses in central

London were bought by opportunists just to be demolished and replaced by hotels, flats,
 Frööjd 11

offices and shops. Just like the aristocracy had been deprived of their dominance in wealth

and political influence, they were also losing their dominance over high society.

From the 1880s onwards, this carefully integrated and functionally significant

social system began to break down. In London high society, the aristocratic

monopoly was broken, as the new super-rich stormed the citadels of social

exclusiveness, and flaunted their parvenu wealth with opulent and irresistible

vulgarity (Cannadine 342).

This “vulgarity” provoked members of the aristocracy to express a clear distaste for the way

they felt the newly rich tried to gain prestige and recognition by wasting huge amounts of

money on ostentatious parties and events. It is noteworthy how these changes must have

affected the aristocracy's perception of themselves. Without any doubt, different individuals

tackled this in different manners. Some accepted this new order, whether reluctantly or even

secretly in relief. It is likely that younger individuals were more prone to accept this order as

they would be the first to mingle across the social boundaries that their parents had never

tread upon. After all, there were still a lot of young and rich aristocrats who were drawn to the

night life that was by now dominated by non-aristocrats. “[b]y the 1890's, the aristocratic

“man about town” was a well known phenomenon. He spent his days (and nights) in sporting

clubs and near the stage door, mixed with book-keepers and racing journalists, squandered his

allowance, and got into all kinds of mischief” (Cannadine 348). To mingle with the lower

classes was one thing, yet something even more astonishing was the fact that the aristocratic

men increasingly started to marry outside their class, a behaviour that would have been

considered nothing less than a social scandal just a few decades earlier (Cannadine 347).

Others would of course reject this as a part of the degradation that they saw in their

contemporary society. As they witnessed the noble wealthy class from just a few decades ago
 Frööjd 12

being largely replaced by, in their mind, a crowd of uncivilised and vulgar newcomers, they

decided to emphasize and cherish the things they considered being exclusively theirs: true

class and heritage. For them it was natural to despise the newly rich and the adventurers for

their lack of good taste and manners as well as marking a clear distance to their lot.

Within social classes, individuals compete for social distinction and cultural

capital on the basis of their capacity to judge the suitability of cultural products

according to class-based standards of taste and manners. Cultural practices

which include both knowledge of culture and critical abilities for assessing and

appreciating it are acquired during childhood in the family and in the

educational system and contribute to the reproduction of the existing social

class culture (Crane 7).

So, if one wanted to keep certain people out of an exclusive class, these practices,

including dress codes, were a means of doing so. They were also vital for maintaining the

sense of common purpose within the group. Thompson mentions these strict dress codes in

The Edwardians – The Remaking of British Society (1992):

The Edwardian gentleman, too, needed a full wardrobe: … They had to take

notice of remarkably fine distinctions as to what dress was, or was not,

appropriate for a particular moment. Brown boots, for example, could be worn

at Ascot, but no nearer town. Like blue spotted ties, they were for country wear.

In London itself one had to be careful in case one's dress was right for the place

but wrong for the moment (10).

When a member of the aristocracy challenged these rules and became more liberal in clothing

and appearance, his or her initiative, in a way, actually posed a threat to the whole shared

conservative value of being an aristocrat in an increasingly more liberal society. Regarding

 Frööjd 13

“the reproduction of the existing social class culture” (Crane 7), it is of course not only vital

to pass it on to the new generations, but also to keep it a priority for all members of the group.

Once again, this is precisely the commitment that I suggest that Jeeves has made.

Of course, not all of the newly rich were even interested in trying to achieve the

standards of the most conservative-minded aristocrats. Instead, they were free to seek out

different ways of expressing their status and enjoying themselves, irrespective to the, to their

mind, oppressive standards of the decreasingly influential aristocracy. This is the freedom that

Wooster seems to be longing for, and that recurrently creates a tension when colliding with

Jeeves' firm opinions and provoking his resentful attitude.

There was also an important aspect of masculinity to what a gentleman was supposed

to wear. One reason why old-fashioned aristocrats disliked colourful and expressive garments

in men's dressing at this time, was because it was historically associated with women's

clothing.

The slow advance of masculine mode in the last two hundred years has made

men more likely victims than women of this desire to resist fashion, but they

also have social and moral tradition behind them in the form of conventional

male superiority to female folly. Devotion to fashion in dress was adduced as a

natural weakness of women, something they could not help. This view was

strengthened in the nineteenth century, when masculine and feminine clothing

became so much more different in fabric, trim and construction. Elegant men´s

clothing during this time was actually no less complex, demanding, and

uncomfortable, but it tended to be more subdued and abstract in the way it

looked. Women´s clothing was extremely expressive, almost literary, and very

deliberately decorative and noticeable (Hollander 360).

 Frööjd 14

This notion was so remarkably strong that even the snipers of the First World War found

themselves to be ridiculed for being feminine because of their necessary means of

camouflage. John Potvin writes in The Places And Spaces of Fashion, 1800-2007 (2009):

Yet this unconventional and feminized decoration of the head with straw,

leaves, and even flowers saved lives on the battlefield. Public perception of the

sniper picked up on the potential ridiculousness of the sniper's disguise. In a

popular song called Camouflage, or the Tale of the sorrowful sniper, a Cockney

sniper is dressed for battle in a “coiffure” “trimmed” with grass and hay like a

ladies' bonnet and “painted” with green makeup (99).

Even if Jeeves' concern about Wooster's style is purely based on following the

traditional dress code of the aristocracy, it would be relevant to analyse the background of

some of these codes, as it is always the colour, or “expressiveness” of the garments that

causes Jeeves to react. “I turned round and Jeeves shied like a startled mustang...“The effect,

sir, is loud in the extreme” (Wodehouse 26). There is nothing in the text that suggests that

Wooster is deliberately trying to express femininity by his colourful accessories. On the

contrary, when arguing with Jeeves about a waistband, he says “I consider that it has rather a

Spanish effect. A touch of the hidalgo. Sort of Vicente y Blasco What´s-his name stuff. The

Jolly old hidalgo off to the bull fight” (26). When mentioning bullfighting, Wooster of course

addresses a sense of masculinity in his garment. The problem is that even if bullfighting is a

symbol of masculinity and heroism in the Spanish culture sphere, which is also acknowledged

in the rest of the world, the style of clothing itself might simply appear rather feminine to

British society contemporary with Wooster and Jeeves. The focus on colours, embroidery,

tassels and tights resembles the idea of British women's clothing traditionally being

“extremely expressive, almost literary, and very deliberately decorative and noticeable”, while
 Frööjd 15

men's clothing were “more subdued and abstract in the way it looked” (Hollander 360). As

Hollander discusses the “conventional male superiority to female folly” (360), she offers this

as an explanation on why men were supposed to dress elegant rather than modish.

The following of fashion, the vanity of modishness, was still supposed to be

a feminine weakness – possibly a feminine wile, a form of black art ... For men

seriousness about elegance, as opposed to modishness, for centuries had a

perfectly respectable justification in accord with male wisdom, sense of

responsibility, steadiness of purpose, even godliness. For men in public life,

elegant dress (not just decent clothes) was necessary to sustain rank and

dignity. One owed it to one's audience not to masquerade as poor if one were

rich, not to violate degree in outward appearance and upset social morality.

Proper attention to dress was a sign of self-respect and respect for the order of

things (361).

Although Wooster is merely trying to inject something individual in his style, this would harm

the “order of things” in Jeeves' opinion. Even if both of them regard the question to be purely

of taste and not gender, it appears as the strict, male dress code that Jeeves is promoting owes

its view of elegance as opposing modishness to traditional ideas about masculinity that were

enhanced and idealised by the aristocracy.

Analysis

P. G. Wodehouse's The Inimitable Jeeves was first published in 1923. We learn that

Wooster is a young aristocrat living a comfortable life in the upper class society of London.

He lives on an allowance from his family, has no job nor any intention to get one. Instead he

starts every day by sleeping through the morning. His waking hours are spent on mingling
 Frööjd 16

with his friends, who share the same lifestyle, going to clubs, golfing, travelling and so on.

The only expectations placed on him by his environment is his aunt's firm opinion that he

aught to be married soon, naturally to an eligible woman from a respected family. This is

however of no interest to Wooster, who is quite happy with a life free from obligations for as

long as he can maintain things that way. In order to avoid his aunt's interference, he can trust

to his loyal and remarkably intelligent valet Jeeves. Jeeves is depicted as the ideal valet. His

knowledge and dedication to every aspect of his profession seem boundless and, with a great

deal of integrity, he cunningly solves any given problem, mostly in a discrete manner. He has,

however, quite firm and conservative opinions on how Wooster should dress and appear as a

gentleman.

Here we find an example of the differences in values between the two characters.

Wooster represents the new order of things; even though his wealth and privileged lifestyle

are a result of his family's aristocratic heritage, he has little interest in strict codes and

manners. His life is all about enjoying himself, and experimenting with a few elements of his

wardrobe is for him a harmless contribution to this purpose. Jeeves, on the other hand, has an

intense distaste for any garment compromising with his own conservative views on proper

clothing for a gentleman. For Jeeves it is really a question of perfection. Not even a pair of

socks can be allowed to ruin the perfect image of his master.

Throughout the book there is a recurring situation where Wooster has bought some

kind of garment that causes Jeeves severe distress. It might be a purple pair of socks, a

brightish scarlet waistband or a pair of spats in Etonian colours. Jeeves will then plead to his

master not to show himself dressed like that in public. However, Wooster will usually not let

himself be lectured, at least not to begin with. This forces Jeeves to accept the situation, for

the time being, with a cold “very well, sir”. These situations are the only ones where there is a
 Frööjd 17

sense of disagreement between the two of them. Wooster notes that Jeeves is keeping his cold

attitude even after the question has, to Wooster's mind, been settled. Of course, Jeeves will

still see to his duties in his typical impeccable way, but his frosty position will not be altered

as long as Wooster is holding on to the garment in question. Complete peace will simply not

be restored until Wooster is forced to ask Jeeves for assistance in one of the many

inconveniences that Wooster is destined to find himself entangled in. Jeeves will, of course,

take care of matters, and as a sign of gratitude Wooster then decides to follow Jeeves' advice

to let go of the piece of clothing in question. This is always the way these situations are

solved, but that does not prevent them from recurring time and again.

Wooster, as well as his friends and family members of similar age, seem to fit quite

well with the term “man about town” (Cannadine 348) previously mentioned on page 11. This

in the sense that they are practically standing with one foot in each world as they are

depending on their traditional bound families to provide them with their maintenance but not

willing to be restricted by these very traditions. One eloquent example from The Inimitable

Jeeves (1923) is when Bingo, Wooster's old friend from school, involves Wooster in a

complicated plan for making Bingo's uncle accepting Bingo marrying a simple waitress

without the uncle withdrawing his allowance (Wodehouse 16). Wooster's own major family-

related problem is, ironically enough, a planned marriage to a girl from a family “above

suspicion” that could “counterbalance the deficiencies and weaknesses” of his character (46).

The family, especially my Aunt Agatha, who has savaged me incessantly from

childhood up, have always rather made a point of the fact that mine is a wasted

life, and that, since I won the price at my first school for the best collection of

wild flowers made during the summer holidays, I haven't done a dam' thing to

land me on the nation's scroll of fame (15).

 Frööjd 18

Wooster is fairly uninterested in family obligations and responsibilities. He seems to

have a hard time understanding why he should be hindered from enjoying himself. This also

goes for his appearance. The recurring situations when discussing proper style with Jeeves

show their great differences in opinion on the matter. Why then is it so important for Jeeves to

make sure that his master's appearance is impeccable down to the last detail? Obviously,

Wooster is making his way in a society where these excessively strict dress codes are

acknowledged by a diminishing number of people. Probably, few would hold it against him,

or even notice, if he were to bend the rules just a bit every now and then. I would suggest that

this could be explained by Jeeves regarding Wooster as being first and foremost a

representative of the aristocratic class that he has found as his call in life to serve. It does not

seem to matter to Jeeves if the people that Wooster mixes with, or even Wooster himself, fail

to see the point of these codes. This view could be interpreted as follows: in order to keep the

few precious remains of a glorious past alive, there simply must be an aura of exclusiveness

preserved for the aristocrats. With the determination and passion that Jeeves has invested in

his calling, what would be the point of all of his perfection, the minute endeavours and the

pride that he can take in being a “topping valet... none better in London” (225) if his master

would be no more than a plain, undemanding person of no importance?

As far as Jeeves and Wooster's relationship is concerned, there are indications

suggesting that it is first and foremost Wooster's social position that Jeeves is paying his

loyalty and respect to, as Wooster's sophistication and intellectual abilities are far below those

of his servant. Throughout the book, Wooster is left dumbfounded by the twists and turns of

Jeeves' cunning. Kirby Olson writes in “Bertie and Jeeves at the End of History: P. G.

Wodehouse as Political Scientist” (1996), that “Jeeves' ministering to his master's every wish

allows him to get a bead on Bertie to the point that he can anticipate and even invent his
 Frööjd 19

master's needs. Bertie is the master, but he is completely dependent on the slave, Jeeves.

Therefore, Jeeves is the one with true freedom, because he has no true master” (73). Jeeves is

hence well aware of his master's shortcomings. At one awkward moment Wooster happens to

overhear Jeeves instructing an understudy, who is to replace Jeeves during his two annual

weeks of vacation “”[y]ou will find Mr Wooster,” he was saying to the substitute chappie, “an

exceedingly pleasant and amiable young gentleman, but not intelligent. By no means

intelligent. Mentally he is negligible – quite negligible”” (Wodehouse 43). Wooster's character

is thus described as “exceedingly pleasant and amiable”, but apart from that, not very

impressive or advanced. This would add to the notion that it is predominately his social

position that renders him respect. I suggest that these are the values that Jeeves is trying to

protect and retain. If the aristocracy were to completely lose its exclusiveness, much of

Jeeves' attainment would be outdated and meaningless. It is precisely his immaculate

professionalism that makes him stand out; his attention to every detail and his ability to guide

and assist his master in every matter. Wooster acknowledges this on the very first page of The

Inimitable Jeeves (1923):

He put the good old cup of tea softly on the table by my bed, and I took a

refreshing sip. Just right, as usual. Not too hot, not too sweet, not too weak, not

too strong, not too much milk, and not a drop spilled in the saucer. A most

amazing cove, Jeeves. So dashed competent in every respect. I've said it before,

and I'll say it again. I mean to say, take just one small instance. Every other

valet I've ever had used to barge into my room in the morning while I was still

asleep, causing much misery; but Jeeves seems to know when I'm awake by a

sort of telepathy. He always floats in with the cup exactly two minutes after I

come to life. Makes a deuce of a lot of difference to a fellow's day (1).

 Frööjd 20

Why then does Jeeves seem to concentrate on Wooster's clothing, above everything

else, to uphold the values of the aristocracy? Jeeves is aware of Wooster's intellectual

shortcomings, but that does not mean that Wooster could not, or should not, act and feel like

the gentleman of birth that he is. Even if there has, most likely, not occurred any alteration in

Jeeves' view on differences between the aristocracy and the non-aristocrats, it has become

much more important to stress these differences. Jeeves' impeccable, detailed sense of style is

something that the less refined cannot decode. They may have “stormed the citadels of social

exclusiveness” (Cannadine 342) but they could not obtain true class to the last, crucial details

any time soon. By dressing more deliberately than them, one might have demonstrated a

distance and a superiority to them. To learn these codes of taste and manners properly was of

course very time-consuming and hard, which helped to keep them exclusive. Yet another

example in the book concerns a pair of spats.

Some dashed brainy cove, probably the chap who invented those coloured

cigarette-cases, had recently had the rather topping idea of putting out a line of

spats on the same system. I mean to say, instead of the ordinary grey and white,

you can now get them in your regimental or school colours. And, believe me, it

would have taken a chappie of stronger fibre than I am to resist the pair of Old

Etonian spats which had smiled up at me from inside the window. I was inside

the shop, opening negotiations, before it had even occurred to me that Jeeves

might not approve. And I must say he had taken the thing a bit hardly. The fact

of the matter is, Jeeves, though in many ways the best valet in London, is too

conservative. Hide-bound, if you know what I mean, and an enemy to Progress.

“Nothing further, Jeeves”, I said, with quiet dignity. “Very good, sir.” He gave

one frosty look at the spats and biffed off. Dash him! (Wodehouse 185).
 Frööjd 21

Wooster is attracted to garments that can “cheer up” and “smile” to him, something with an

individual touch, for example his school colours. I want to argue that the question of

individuality verses the attributes of a group is of crucial importance here. Nathan Joseph

writes in his book Uniforms And Nonuniforms: Communication through Clothing (1986), that

“one of the distinguishing characteristics of a uniform is that it suppresses individuality. The

tie, conservative or flashy, serves as an indication of the wearer's level of commitment to the

message conveyed by the suit” (qtd. in Crane 174). If Jeeves regards Wooster to be first of all

a member of the aristocracy, with an obligation to uphold the aristocratic values of

appearance, then any individual traits might diminish Wooster's “level of commitment” to

these values. There is obviously no room for individualism within this dress code, according

to Jeeves, as the belonging to the group in itself seems to be the most important asset of

identity for its members. Once again I interpret this as being a sign of Jeeves first and

foremost trying to protect the conservative values of the aristocratic class as a whole, with less

regard for the individual members.

Conclusion

To sum up my analysis, I would like to stress that P.G. Wodehouse's characters

Wooster and Jeeves were portrayed during a period of our history when the British class

society had undergone extreme changes during a comparatively short period of time. The

privileged position of the aristocracy, both as regards wealth and social and political power,

was so strong up until the 1880s that it ought to have seemed unlikely that anything less than

a revolution could have turned the tables. Despite this, unforeseen effects of global trade and

changing social circumstances deprived the aristocracy of its dominance in economical, social

and political power. Suddenly, newly rich could buy their way into
 Frööjd 22

environments where, to a large extent, the conservative and tradition-bound aristocracy were

used to dominate. The culture clash between a class that was used to judge others by their

heritage, and attend traditions and family holdings for centuries, and newcomers who

compensated their lack of history and manners with waste and show, was partially severe,

but the reaction of the “former élite” was mixed.

Wooster and Jeeves appear to take very different positions in this matter. Wooster's

main concern is to live an easy and enjoyable life, supported by his family's money. He is

really a rather simple-minded person, happy as long as he can go on with his business without

being burdened by responsibilities or demands. Jeeves, on the other hand, is in many ways

Wooster's contrast. He is profoundly devoted to his calling of being a first class valet. While

Wooster is simple-minded and plain, Jeeves is uncannily intelligent and nimble. It soon

becomes obvious in the story that one of Jeeves' most serious dedications is that of keeping

his master dressed to perfection according to Jeeves' own extremely strict sense of class.

Wooster, being rather more relaxed about the thing, is eager to find accessories and garments

in somewhat more lively colours to spice up his style, but Jeeves is relentless in his distaste

for any such ideas.

In my analysis, I have concentrated on Jeeves and his adamant determination to bring

such resistance even to the most insignificant of details. This appears to be a matter of

principles well advanced into obsession, and I have tried to find out what the main reason for

this stunning determination could be. At first glance, it would be easy to assume that Jeeves,

in line with his professional attitude towards his duties, is simply eager to keep Wooster

properly dressed and respectable for the sake of Wooster's social rank and dignity. But

Wooster has few ambitions regarding social rank and dignity. He makes his way in a society

where his heritage has a descending importance, where he gets everything that he wants by
 Frööjd 23

means of money instead of lineage. He is also a simple-minded person without any ambitions

for a career or a position of any kind. So, if both Wooster and the people he associates with

fail to see the reason behind Jeeves' strict codes of dressing, why is it still so desperately

important to keep them up?

My conclusion is that Jeeves first and foremost is trying to protect the old values of the

aristocratic class as a whole, where Wooster, as a member, must be forced to uphold these

values for the sake and principal of the whole group. Although Jeeves himself is no member

of the aristocracy, he is as dependent on, and faithful to, the old conservative values as any

member would be. He is the ideal valet, perfected in his profession. He is a master in his trade

with complete knowledge of every aspect, every professional secret there is. If the old order

would finally become extinct, his vocation would go with it, his passion for his trade would

become redundant.

We know that Jeeves is well aware of Wooster being “mentally negligible”, but this

does not matter, as Jeeves' loyalty and respect are based on Wooster's social position and the

honour that Jeeves recognizes in the relation between master and servant. In fact, if Jeeves

was to judge his master strictly by his personal qualities, much of Jeeves endeavours would

probably seem wasted. But this does not matter as long as Wooster is first and foremost

treated as the aristocrat that he, despite all, still is. He might not even understand the finesse

of the system that makes his valet able to shine in his profession, but this is not important as

long as Wooster himself is made to serve as the proper master.

 Frööjd 24

Works Cited

Bauman, Zygmunt. Between Class and Elite - The Evolution of the British Labour Movement,

A Sociological Study. Manchester: U of Manchester P, 1972. Print.

Cannadine, David. The Decline and Fall of the British Aristocracy. London: Papermac, 1996.

Print.

Crane, Diana. Fashion And Its Social Agendas- Class, Gender and Identity in Clothing.

Chicago: U of Chicago P, 2000. Print.

Gallagher, Catherine, and Stephen Greenblatt. Practicing New Historicism. Chicago: U of

Chicago P, 2000. Print.

Hollander, Anne. Seeing through Clothes. Los Angeles: U of California P, 1993. Print

Olson, Kirby. “Bertie And Jeeves at the End of History: P. G. Wodehouse as Political

Scientist” Humor: International Journal of Humor Research (1996/9/1): 73-88. Print.

Potvin, John. The Places and Spaces of Fashion, 1800-2007. New York: Routledge, 2009.

Print.

Ryan, Kiernan. New Historicism and Cultural Materialism. Bristol: Bloomsbury Academic,

1996. Print.

Thompson, Paul. The Edwardians – The Remaking of British Society. Wiltshire: Redwood

Press, 1992. Print.

Wodehouse, P.G. The Inimitable Jeeves. St Ives: Clays, 1999. Print.